Well, it's hard for me to pick a side. On the poster's side, I agree that there should have been an accurate timepiece. I also think it would be nearly insane for someone to assume there wouldn't be a clock of some sort at such a standardized and highly weighted test. To even fathom the ineptness that would require could destroy most supercomputers.

However.

I studied with three books for the LSAT. And ALL THREE said to bring a timepiece. Each and every one said 'rely on yourself for EVERYTHING', 'assume nothing', and 'everything that can go wrong, will'. So I went out, and found a watch with a silent stopwatch function (searched for weeks, looking at expensive watches, but ALL of them have sound with the stopwatch - until I stumbled on a 4 dollar Walmart watch that was too cheap to have sound... PERFECT!!!). I brought extra everything, and yes, I had to tell the proctor at one point they were doing something wrong (involving tearing off the bottom of the LSAT ticket).

So, I guess I have this opinion. If nothing he read before the test warned him, then I don't think it's his fault. *I* certainly would have assumed they would have a dang CLOCK there. However, if he was warned and ignored it...... that's a different matter...

Both sides were culpable, but why does that matter? The dude is pissed and disappointed, and all you've done is exacerbate it. Good work, asshat.

seconded

not bringing a watch doesn't make you a moron. The proctors/administrators weren't really morons either, more like lazy asses for not either putting a clock in the room or moving the test to one of the many empty rooms probably available.